Kerala High Court
Century Hire Purchase vs C.P.Subash And Another on 14 July, 2025
2025:KER:51542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1461 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2008 IN CC
NO.212 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-II, MUVATTUPZHA
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTURY HIRE PURCHASE, VELLOORKUNNAM,
MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER M.S. INDUCHOODAN,
S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, MADATHIL HOUSE,
ELANGAVOM KARA, VARAPPETTY VILLAGE,
VARAPETTY.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.DILIP
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED & STATE:
1 C.P.SUBASH, CHERUVILPUTHENPURA,
AMALAGIRI P.O., MANNANAM, KOTTAYAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SHRI.ALEX M THOMBRA,SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.07.2025, THE COURT ON 14.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :2: 2025:KER:51542
JUDGMENT
The complainant in C.C.No.212/2008 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Muvattupuzha,
has filed this appeal with the leave of this Court,
challenging an order of acquittal passed under Section
256 of Cr.P.C. The said case was registered on the basis
of a complaint filed alleging commission of an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, by the accused, who is the 1st
respondent in this appeal.
2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for
both sides and perused the records.
3. A perusal of the records reveals that the
complainant had initially approached the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, with a
complaint alleging that the accused committed an
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offence and issued a summons
CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :3: 2025:KER:51542
to the accused. The case was originally taken on file
in the said court as C.C.505/2006. As evident from
the records, the said case was subsequently
transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Muvattupuzha, where it was renumbered as
212/2008. As revealed from the proceedings of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha,
the case was posted for the appearance of the parties
on 19.05.2008, which was the first posting date after
the transfer. However, on 19.05.2008, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256
of Cr.P.C. as there was no representation for the
complainant on that day.
4. While considering whether the said order is
liable to be interfered, it is pertinent to note that the
case was originally pending before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, and it was,
as per the order of CJM, the same was transferred to
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :4: 2025:KER:51542
Muvattupuzha. The learned counsel for the appellant
has raised a grievance that no proper notice of
transfer was served on the parties, and it was due to
this lack of intimation that the complainant failed to
appear before the transferee court on the date of
posting. I am not intending to go into the details
regarding the question of whether there was proper
service of notice of transfer to the parties. Anyhow,
from a perusal of the copy of the proceedings paper
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Muvattupuzha, it is discernible that 19.05.2008 was
the very first posting of the case before the
transferee court, and on the said day itself, the
accused was acquitted on the ground of
non-appearance of the complainant. I am not
oblivious of the fact that there is no illegality per se in
acquitting an accused under Section 256 of Cr.P.C.
due to absence of the complainant. However, the
learned Magistrate ought to have adopted a more
CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :5: 2025:KER:51542
pragmatic approach, especially since it was the first
posting date after the transfer. Therefore, nobody
could be blamed if it is found that the learned
Magistrate acted somewhat hastily in passing the
order of acquittal. Moreover, it is pertinent to note
that on the date on which the order was passed,
there was no representation for both sides, which
suggests that proper and effective notice regarding
the transfer and posting may not have been served
on both sides. Considering the totality of the
circumstances, it appears that the absence of the
complainant was not deliberate or ill-motivated. It is
apparent that the learned Magistrate proceeded to
pass the impugned order without appreciating the
context of the transfer and the conduct of the
complainant in the previous postings. Considering
the stake of the matter involved in this case, I am of
the view that it is highly necessary that the matter be
decided on merits, otherwise the same will result in
CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :6: 2025:KER:51542
miscarriage of justice.
In the result, the order of acquittal dated
19.05.2008 passed by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Muvattupuzha in C.C.
No.212/2008 under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court
for disposal in accordance with law. The
complainant and the accused shall appear before
the trial court on 12.08.2025. Considering the fact
that this matter is of the year 2006, the learned
Magistrate shall take every endeavour to dispose
of the matter as early as possible, preferably
within five months from 12.08.2025.
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
